How to apply BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice against those who believe a mother’s “right to bodily autonomy” justifies abortion.

In abortion debates, some concede the pre-born are human beings, but they’ll say:

Abortion is justifiable, because the mother has the right to control how her own body is used.

Such arguments justify abortion by asserting that the mother’s right to her bodily autonomy is greater than her own child’s right to life during gestation, or even later.

All bodily autonomy arguments play on Dependency. They deny the intrinsic value of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) that the responsibility to be morally humane can have exceptions. They subvert the intrinsic value of the mother and the definition of motherhood by insisting that an act of violence against an innocent dependent human being is moral, humane and beneficial.

BioSLED Response: “Can you name one act of mortal violence inflicted upon a dependent human being which is moral, humane, beneficial and desired by the dependent?”

Who receives the benefits of the violence?

After live birth, is it okay to kill dependent newborns, toddlers, kids, teens?

Reasoning: Show there are no exceptions for violence against dependent human beings. This pits a person’s understanding of self-determination up against their own victimizing behavior. If someone genuinely believes in the goodness of humanity and self-autonomy, when they resort to violence to benefit themselves, they desecrate their own humanity and cruelly victimize others.

Killing is an act of commission, meaning the violence of abortion is a direct application of force (argumentum ad baculum) on the mother’s behalf, and the violence only happens because she is a mother.

Those who defend bodily autonomy violence provide a circular argument. They reject the notion of the intrinsic value of the dependent human child while at the same time demanding the intrinsic-value of the mother be upheld. Such inequality of basic human rights is the hallmark of discrimination.

Further, some claim the Environment – the natural location of the child in the mother’s womb, justifies the abortion, but admit bodily dependency ends when birth occurs. Others, like Peter Singer, and President Barack Obama, aim to sever relational dependency, to permit the killing of dependent newborns.

So the issue is not gestational dependency alone, but violence explicitly against a dependent. On this planet, we are all dependent upon each other to some degree. There are no exceptions to being humane with dependents.

For Legalists: Legalists place functionality above morality by falsely assuming human rights are granted by a government. The documented, legally demonstrable view is that human rights are endowed by a Creator (meaning they are intrinsic) and merely defended by a government. Some claim gestation is a special right granted to the pre-born by the mother but this rejects the notion that life is a right granted from outside of man’s control, and rejects the very process of motherhood by which all humans live. So it condones the use of violence against the very nature of human life itself.

Another variation, pregnancy as slavery, is invalid because pregnancy is a humane, survivable natural good, beneficial to all of humanity, while murder of posterity is not. Consent to intercourse was free-will consent to a dependent human being, as that is the natural purpose of intercourse. Demanding one uphold their responsibilities to other human beings, such as respecting the life you participated in creating, is a far cry from imposing situations upon human beings who had no choice in the outcome – which is precisely what those who demand abortion do to the unborn human beings.

So legally, the government is failing to uphold the very human rights they are incorporated to defend.

Human Rights abortion, autonomy, bioSLED

How to handle personhood arguments using BioSLED – the best argument against abortion-choice.

In abortion debates, one often hears:

“Abortion is okay because the fetus is not a person.”

Non-personhood arguments play on Level of Development. They deny the intrinsic nature of human beings by falsely assuming (”begging the question” -petitio principii) two components (body and person), instead of one. They justify abortion by asserting a “person” is not present at the time of an abortion by defining what it means to be a person.

BioSLED Response: “Can you prove to me you are a person without using your physical body in any way?” The other person won’t be able to.

Reasoning: Self-awareness doesn’t require communicating your own awareness to others. Yet body presence indicates you exist – your body is your means of communication. A test for intangible personhood which ignores the human body is an invalid test, because no natural human being can pass it.

Science tells us the pre-born are human beings, based on numerous established facts, such as embryological development, uniqueness of DNA and that life comes from life – the Law of Biogenesis. After amphimixis humans exist – they have human flesh and blood. Given a proper environment and nourishment they thrive.

Demanding the pre-born communicate at an advanced level of development is unfair because it smuggles in the idea that communication only occurs according to a presumed definition provided by the abortion-choicer.

The abortion-choicer imposes a conditional test of self-awareness they cannot pass, and assumes their own level of development is sufficient. So abortion-choicers discriminate against the pre-born due to their level of development, but use their own level of development as a definition of their humanity.

Placing the abortion-choicer back at the same level of development as the pre-born should alter their perspective, if they are intellectually honest, on what it means to be a human person.

For the Philosophers: Ontological vs Epistemilogical Statements
Ontological thoughts have to do with the metaphysical – existence/being/nature. Epistemological has to do with knowing – beliefs, opinions etc. We shouldn’t confuse these terms or switch their meanings. Descartes, no matter how much thinking he did, did not exist due to his thinking. He existed prior to his conscious thoughts and that existence was a pre-requisite for his ability to communicate his beliefs. “I think, therefore I am” is putting Decartes before the horse.

If you find this valuable – please link to it. If you think it needs improvement – let me know in the comments. Thanks!

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

Squiggling in the word “choice” allows people a conscientious backdoor to escape.

When someone says “choice” they need to be asked – what is the result of an abortion-choice?

Because the only factual answer is: a dead human being.

And birth-choice terminates pregnancy with a live baby.

If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED.

Human Rights abortion, bioSLED

On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves. [Zech 12:3 NIV]

Do you care about Israel?   Are you friend or foe?

What about God’s commandment to bless and not curse Israel?

Recently I came across four fascinating pieces I feel compelled to share.

Sandi Shoshani is doing some amazing work in changing lives and saving lives throughout Israel. As Director of Be’ad Chaim (which means Pro Life in Hebrew) – a pregnancy resource center network in Israel, she has a perspective on abortion and it’s impact on world politics you seriously need to consider.

Anyone who honestly says abortion can’t hurt population demographics and the balance of the nations should think twice.

In 2008 – Israel had 140,000 live births and somewhere between 40,000 – 50,000 abortions. Since their inception, Israel has collectively aborted 2 million when their population is only 7 million total today. Had they not aborted their children, Israel would not have a problem facing the challenges of a growing Palestinian population. Abortion matters in the life and death struggles of nations.

Considering that point, take a look at what Michael B. Oren at Commentary Magazine offers regarding the very existence of the modern Jewish state of Israel (or it’s potential demise) with Seven Existential Threats.

And realizing that Israel is not alone in this struggle, Mark Steyn has an excellent article at Commentary Magazine where things are going with radical Islam, how demographics figure into the weakening of Europe and the growing rise of Islam.

Lastly – take a look at this:

Abortion has consequences that reach beyond the personal, impacting the nations.

When calling out the Pope for his trespasses – will Israel admit their own auto-genocide trespass?

Perspective abortion, end-times, Israel

Found a great comment on Yourish.com from David Foster that made so much sense. Progressives (liberals) view morals as properties of objects and not people. So for instance, nuclear weapons are immoral, but not people who seek to use them. Guns are immoral, but not people who shoot others. Bombs are evil, but not those who employ them.

Fascinating theory.

How would this apply to abortion?

The answer is obvious, but it took me a moment, because I don’t even think like that.

The immoral “object” is the baby.

Wow. I’d love to test this out with a survey.

What do you think – does it fit real-world observations?

Morality abortion

Jill Stanek covered a new Mother’s Day fundraising campaign by Planned Parenthood, but now she indicates there’s been some pressure being applied to Judy Blume in this article:

Backlash against children’s book author’s support of Planned Parenthood

Frankly, I think this is a completely planned controversial promotion on their part.

I’ll share what I wrote in an email to some friends upon seeing the initial Planned Parenthood promo letter and then reflecting upon it:

Like the Miss USA pageant, which lacked ratings and national exposure, but sure found a lot of free press with a controversy, I’m getting the feeling both Judy Blume and PPA needed a quick pick-me up in the publicity dept. and felt controversy would deliver it.

Upon reflection it seems that way.

“Forever” appears to be a publicity piece written as a story to be sold to promote “family planning clinics” and the pill right after the Roe opinion came out. My guess is, if the pro-life community makes a big deal over PPA’s fundraiser, we’ll be inadvertently promoting Blume’s trash to a new audience who will want to know why the books are so bad. Clever marketing tactic. (or do I overrate the pro-life influence?)

I’ve been noticing this parasitic pattern ever since I heard a Canadian band called Mes Aieux sing a song called “Degeneration” It was a big hit in Canada, and a lot of pro-life people purchased the song and album. The band waited and waited until the song played out and started going down in the charts until they corrected the pro-life advocacy of the song. Turns out the band was distinctly pro-abortion. They got the money, and despite the crystal clear implications of the lyrics, denied it had a pro-life message. They gained at the expense of the generous Canadian pro-lifers.

The key point – the devil will lie to gain the power of this world – money. I’d like to learn how to spot parasitic promos and avoid giving them any traction whatsoever.

We need to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

It now appears Cecile Richards is simply stirring the cauldron and hoping to inflame enough people to generate tons of donations.

What would be the best way to combat this?

Perspective abortion, strategy

Lila Rose exposes yet another Planned Parenthood covering up alleged statutory rape in TN in a pattern that is not isolated to one state, but now has been exposed at 6 clinics and multiple states.

There clearly have been violations of the law requiring reporting of the statutory rape, so the truth of the situation should be confirmed by authorities.

So in these exposés:

• Does respective state case law dismiss prosecutorial actions due to journalistic exposure?
• Can charges be filed against AG officials for failing to uphold the law?
• To what extent is the state judiciary responsible for guardianship actions?

Although failure to report statutory rape is serious, a related problem is being revealed by Lila and her team at LiveAction.

Girls are sent to judges without explicit medical referral. For instance Lila is told to call on her own to obtain a judicial by-pass. Yet, with the state assuming the guardian role, the judicial by-pass hinges entirely upon the testimony of the 14 year old girl, without confirmation of pregnancy or legal determination of the father. Most states have laws stating pregnancy is a medical diagnosis made only by a doctor. How can a judge make a determination without depending upon a chain of responsible medical authority? After all, the judge is not a doctor. It seems sound medical and legal evidence is unnecessary for serious legal action. Is the judiciary breaking the law?

When medical agencies collect data, they are acting on a doctor’s behalf, thus establishing a chain of medical/legal liability. In guardianship situations, these agencies are also acting as agents of the courts because the authority over the child is transferred due to their discovery. PPA’s tactic of blaming it on employees appears to be legally non-binding.

With the financial motive/ conflict of interest in sending the girl for the bypass, there is an incentive to not investigate the cause of the pregnancy, because it may change the business dynamic if statutory rape is discovered.

If the pregnancy was the result of statutory rape, and an abortion was performed with a judicial bypass, then the state itself was complicit in destroying the very evidence of the crime!

Judicial by-passes are inherently complicit in existing abuse and encourage further abuse of little girls.

Human Rights abortion, justice, rape

Last weekend our congregation received a shock from the pulpit:

In RI, prostitution is legal if conducted indoors.

I had no idea. From the look on the faces, many in the church couldn’t believe it either. I spent some time last night researching the topic to provide a quick snapshot.

Only two states allow this, and in Nevada it’s legal only within a few counties. So RI is developing a unique statewide free market enterprise zone – sexual pleasure for sale.

Remarkably, prostitution defenders call it a viable profession to make ends meet. Disregard the moral decay or the irony here regarding the state discouraging marriage while encouraging single motherhood to discuss the primary side effect of this law: sex slavery.

While pimping is illegal, it’s almost guaranteed where prostitution flourishes. Remember supply-demand? It creates a nice cauldron of addictions and violent demands. Vice is vicious.

Now organized crime is importing sex slaves (which may include US citizens) and hiding behind privacy and an embedded bureaucracy that defends prostitution. The indoor practice covers up numerous activities, obstructing who is being chosen, masking whether this is consensual or demanded. Statutory rape? Who would know? Fetishes are being expansively entertained, bringing with them the potential depravity of snuff films. Is your skin crawling yet?

Gay sexual availability is a controlling factor and is a vehemently defended “right” . Few officers want to enter this area to enforce regulations. The violence and disease must be overwhelming, but untraceable, due to HIPPA laws.

I’ll give you an idea of where all this goes.

I’m adamantly pro-life (maybe an understatement). Logically, rationally, reasonably I can argue against abortion-choice arguments. However, one case of abortion usually done in sex slave situations inverts all reasoning.

If a female sex slave gets pregnant, the slavers don’t want her to abort – they keep her pregnant. In some cases, they will impregnate her on purpose. When she delivers, they use the child as a living ball and chain to hold onto the mother, preventing her from escaping. Later, her child is pressed into generational sex slavery.

Now you have the odd situation where abortion is considered both freeing of this depravity and merciful to the child.

It’s not consensual, it’s not her free choice, it’s not right. Birth is used as a tool of control over the enslaved woman.

Calling it “human trafficking” is too clean, too antiseptic to describe this filth, this slavery.

This evil needs to be purged from our state – and from all nations.

Human Rights abortion, Political

Fr. Pavone has an excellent observation about love and the sacrifices one makes.

Human Rights abortion, love, sacrifice

The fetus, at all gestational stages, from conception to birth, is a human being who deserves the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My argument is made in two portions: 1) what is the substance and; 2) is there moral agency?

For discussion purposes I’ll use the word “fetus”, which has two meanings: 1) child/offspring;  2) a medical descriptive for the maturation stage of gestation after organ formation has completed. As most pro-choice advocates argue using “fetus” in a general sense, I’ll use it in that manner to mean offspring of either embryonic or fetal stages of gestation.

If you plan on arguing, you must present objective reasons which are descriptive of the “object” of the fetus, otherwise your commentary is merely opinion.  Past commenters have called my valid reasoning “opinion” without supportive reasoning of why they thought it was subjective.  Please don’t do that – I’ll address thoughtful arguments.  If you want to bleat talking points, do so elsewhere.

1. What is the substance?

Abortion undeniably destroys and removes human flesh and blood.  Photos and scientific evidence testify to the presence of human flesh and blood as the fetus.  

1. The living fetus is a self-organizing, growing, human being (homo sapiens) – scientifically the law of biogenesis shows that two human beings pro-create after their own kind, so each human fetus has both a mother – the pregnant woman, and a father. (Note present tense.)
2. Each human fetus has a unique flesh/blood identity (DNA & chromosomal patterns, including gender).  This flesh and blood is not an organ of the woman’s body. It is a separate human being.  I could provide numerous scientific & medical references that speak to the human nature of the fetus which explain sperm and oocyte joining through development to birth. Feel free to consult a solid medical embryology text.  From an intellectually honest standpoint, one must concede that the substance of the fetus, being flesh and blood, is indeed a living human being of the same substance basis as all other human beings, otherwise one must provide solid evidence to the contrary.

2. Does this human being have moral agency?

Philosophically, should the fetus be regarded as a human being when it comes to rights and responsibilities? 

While scientific fact validates the fetus as a human being as far as flesh and blood is concerned, a valid argument must be made that the pre-born are not human being with an intrinsic right to life, to which all other human beings claim possession.  Do not present Blackmun’s circular and irrational Roe opinion.  (We need not answer the difficult question of when life begins…).  As everyone was once a pre-born human being, the burden of proof rests upon the pro-choice camp in denying their own rights during some portion of their own life. If you wish to detach your “person” from your body (in effect splitting one human being into two or more elements) you must explain why destroying your own body would not destroy your person – the test you are establishing for the fetal human being.  

Size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency are the only factors which differentiate between one’s pre-born self and where you are now. Morally, these factors do not negate the rights of human beings, including the foundational right to life, upon which all others hang. Throughout our legal system we have laws to stop discrimination against each of these factors.  Also discriminating against pre-born humans on sentience fails when the same test is applied to other human beings.  Such arguments present a functional or utilitarian description of human beings which lend themselves to cruel discriminatory practices. 

On the moral agency factor of dependency – all rights come with moral responsibilities which cannot be rejected because we ourselves are a result of such responsibilities. Such responsibilities are upheld in law. The greatest is: do not murder, particularly those who are completely dependent upon us.  We do not allow murder of our newborn children.  Our responsibilities with regard to justice and to each other requires us to defend the innocent against their destruction at the hands of the powerful.

Disregarding the principle of defense of the weak and innocent invites brute force against them as a people group – which describes abortion perfectly. It’s also completely fallacious.

Brute force renders any question about the humanity of the pre-born superfluous – there is no reason to ask what it is if the sole intention is to destroy it.

If the fetus is an innocent human being, then no excuse, justifies their direct killing.

Human Rights abortion, fetus